Skip to comments.
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Haaretz ^
Posted on 08/13/2008 7:16:48 AM PDT by WilliamReading
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
TOPICS: Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: geopolitics; islam; israel; mohammedanism; proliferation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: kabar
And to get back to the original question-—
If you governed Israel what would you do about Iran?
BTW Ahmadinejad came out with some new anti Israel threats today. 12th Imam inspired. They have the fantasies, not me. If someone says he will kill you you take him at his word
41
posted on
08/13/2008 4:24:45 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(That Muhammad was a charlatan. Islam is a hoax, an imperialistic ideology, disguised as religion.)
To: dennisw
You are very sanguine about the Ayatollahs. You are a minority of one. Or maybe three or four. I go along with none of your theories These "theories" are based on personal experience and knowledge. It has nothing to do with being "very sanguine about the Ayatollahs," but rather, understanding who they are and what they want. Our objective should be regime change. Given their domestic economic problems and the people's general unhappiness with the country's leadership, the ayatollahs are just trying to create an external threat to divert attention from their troubles at home. Just like the the people in Eastern Europe who knew what was happening in the West, so do the Iranians. Time is really on our side.
Putin was a coiled snake a few days ago .... until he struck. In retrospect we all realize the Russian strike had been planned for months with equipment mobilized in advance
That's what happens when you have an ex-KGB agent in charge flush with oil money. He would love to restore Russia back to its former "glory' as the Soviet Union. It comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Russia. I am sure our intelligence community was not surprised.
42
posted on
08/13/2008 4:25:52 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: dennisw
If you governed Israel what would you do about Iran?Keep my powder dry and work with the US on a joint strategy on how best to have regime change. We may still have to use force, but at a time of our choosing not the Iranians. We should not react to their threats and bluster. For Israel, the threat is much more immediate and real. The US could make a strong public statement that any nuclear attack against Israel would have very serious consequences for Iran.
BTW Ahmadinejad came out with some new anti Israel threats today. 12th Imam inspired. They have the fantasies, not me. If someone says he will kill you you take him at his word.
Ahmadinejad is a figurehead. The real power is the Assembly of Experts and Supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khameini who replaced Khomeini. Since 1979 there has been only two Supreme Leaders. Ahmadinejad is just stirring the pot. It probably helps raise the price of oil, which is now going down.
43
posted on
08/13/2008 4:36:38 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: kabar
If Israel bombs Iran, the US will be blamed for it. How GOOD is this for the US troops in Iraq and our mission there? What impact will this have on US interests in the region? On world oil supplies and the price of oil? On our economy? What are the impacts of a nuclear Iran on all of these?
What are the impacts a nuclear bomb going off in an American or Israeli city resulting in a nuclear response.
44
posted on
08/13/2008 4:38:45 PM PDT
by
rmlew
(Liberalism is like AIDS; it destroys the natural defenses of a nation or civilization.)
To: rmlew
What would be the impact on Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel or the US?
45
posted on
08/13/2008 4:44:57 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: WilliamReading; SJackson
I’m not sure where this Israeli writer is getting this info, and how accurate it might be. These details seem like information which should be classified. So if the story is accurate, people in high places (most likely on the Israeli side, but not necessarily) who shouldn’t be leaking to the media are doing just that. Seems like this leak should be plugged, and the person(s) responsible made to account for their action.
To: kabar
What would be the impact on Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel or the US?
1) You assume rationality. As far as some of the mullahs are concerned it could be the fire that cleanses the Muslim world and brings the Mahdi.
2) A rational Iranian government might gamble that they could get away with an indirect nuclear attack via proxy. Countries make suicidally stupid misjudgements. Remember Pearl Harbor?
47
posted on
08/13/2008 5:12:30 PM PDT
by
rmlew
(Liberalism is like AIDS; it destroys the natural defenses of a nation or civilization.)
To: kabar
What would be the impact on Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel or the US?You're taking the risk that the Iranians are overly concerned about this
Their apocalyptic version of Islam likes chaos. More chaos the better to usher in the Mahdi Islamic redeemer
The US could make a strong public statement that any nuclear attack against Israel would have very serious consequences for Iran.
Israel won't place much stock in that after seeing how much we helped Georgia which has roughly the same population
But even before that any US threat or even a US nuclear blow against Iran doesn't help Israel. Because one Iranian nuke in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and there is no more Israel
48
posted on
08/13/2008 6:11:04 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(That Muhammad was a charlatan. Islam is a hoax, an imperialistic ideology, disguised as religion.)
To: kabar
You personally-— Do you take threats to kill you seriously? Threats to kill your wife and children
Most people take anyone who utters these threats seriously. Even if they are nice the next day. The old Mafia honchos could be real nice to you one day and get an underling to murder you the next
Thus-— Israel takes Iranian death threats seriously especially since they are constant
49
posted on
08/13/2008 6:15:09 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(That Muhammad was a charlatan. Islam is a hoax, an imperialistic ideology, disguised as religion.)
To: SJackson
Could be the disinformation starting up . Attack happening now ;)
50
posted on
08/13/2008 8:16:00 PM PDT
by
Deetes
(God Bless the Troops .)
To: rmlew
You assume irrationality. After spending two years in Iran, including during the Iranian Revolution, I don’t share your views. We will agree to disagree.
51
posted on
08/13/2008 10:41:43 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: dennisw
You're taking the risk that the Iranians are overly concerned about this Their apocalyptic version of Islam likes chaos. More chaos the better to usher in the Mahdi Islamic redeemerSorry, I don't buy into that nonsense. The Iranians are not about to commit national suicide. As noted, the real danger is from terrorist surrogates. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a means to prevent foreign interference and for regional hegemony. The only problem is that a nuclear Iran will move other nations in the region to acquire a nuclear capability.
Israel won't place much stock in that after seeing how much we helped Georgia which has roughly the same population
Israel is not Georgia and Iran is not Russia. There is very little we can do to help Georgia beyond diplomacy.
But even before that any US threat or even a US nuclear blow against Iran doesn't help Israel. Because one Iranian nuke in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and there is no more Israel
Nonsense. One nuclear weapon won't destroy Israel.
52
posted on
08/13/2008 10:51:03 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: dennisw
You personally- Do you take threats to kill you seriously? Threats to kill your wife and childrenIt depends on who is making the threats and whether they have the ability and will to carry through with them. Before the Gulf War Iraq made all kinds of threats about what they would do to us.
Thus- Israel takes Iranian death threats seriously especially since they are constant.
They can take them seriously. The question is what to do about it.
53
posted on
08/13/2008 10:56:40 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: kabar
The Iranians see a nuclear weapon as insurance against US intervention against them and as a means to achieve regional hegemony using nuclear weapons as blackmail and a means of putting pressure on its neighbors. Offering more than enough justification for Israel to bomb their facilites
54
posted on
08/14/2008 6:42:08 AM PDT
by
1Old Pro
To: 1Old Pro
I would rather not have Israel driving our foreign policy. An attack will have consequences for us. We have acted as Israel’s guarantor of its existence providing over $100 billion in aid and exercising on numerous occasions vetos in the UN Security Council in defense of Israel. I don’t favor unilateral action on their part.
55
posted on
08/14/2008 7:02:18 AM PDT
by
kabar
To: Prophet in the wilderness
56
posted on
08/14/2008 8:40:14 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: kabar
I take regimes at their word when it is backed by the ideology of the regime.
But I respect the opinions of those who have lived there, and as a New Yorker, I hope their optimism is justified.
57
posted on
08/14/2008 9:57:03 AM PDT
by
rmlew
(I stand with Georgia against the Kremlin's Russian irredentism and Soviet revanchism.)
To: kabar
You're taking the risk that the Iranians are overly concerned about this Their apocalyptic version of Islam likes chaos. More chaos the better to usher in the Mahdi Islamic redeemer
Sorry, I don't buy into that nonsense. The Iranians are not about to commit national suicide.
The Iranians buy into it. Enough of them do. You blithely Islam's influence in this most Islamic nation. And this is end times Islam not the kind you claim familiarity with
As noted, the real danger is from terrorist surrogates. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a means to prevent foreign interference and for regional hegemony. The only problem is that a nuclear Iran will move other nations in the region to acquire a nuclear capability.
Lots more problems. Iran controlling Middle East oil output in consultation with Russia
I guarantee you this will be extremely unpleasant, even for you
But even before that any US threat or even a US nuclear blow against Iran doesn't help Israel. Because one Iranian nuke in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and there is no more Israel
Nonsense. One nuclear weapon won't destroy Israel.
Incorrect. Many experts say one nuke will do it. If I ran Israel I don't take this chance and strike first
One nuke destroying Tel Aviv and the Arabs can kill off whatever and whoever remains
58
posted on
08/14/2008 4:26:08 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(That Muhammad was a charlatan. Islam is a hoax, an imperialistic ideology, disguised as religion.)
To: kabar
Ahmadinejad is a figurehead. The real power is the Assembly of Experts and Supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khameini who replaced Khomeini. Since 1979 there has been only two Supreme Leaders. Ahmadinejad is just stirring the pot. It probably helps raise the price of oil, which is now going down.
This 2006 article says you are wrong and he has even more power two years later:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1148788800&en=b9be1c95beeefaad&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Iran Chief Eclipses Power of Clerics
Published: May 28, 2006
TEHRAN, May 27 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader, according to government officials and political analysts here.
That rare unity of elected and religious leadership at the highest levels offers the United States an opportunity to talk to a government, however combative, that has often spoken with multiple voices. But if Washington, which severed relations with Iran after the 1979 revolution, opened such a dialogue, it could lift the prestige of the Iranian president, who has pushed toward confrontation with the West.
Political analysts and people close to the government here say Mr. Ahmadinejad and his allies are trying to buttress a system of conservative clerical rule that has lost credibility with the public. Their strategy hinges on trying to win concessions from the West on Iran's nuclear program and opening direct, high-level talks with the United States, while easing social restrictions, cracking down on political dissent and building a new political class from outside the clergy.
-SNIP_
59
posted on
08/14/2008 4:34:09 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(That Muhammad was a charlatan. Islam is a hoax, an imperialistic ideology, disguised as religion.)
To: dennisw
The Iranians buy into it. Enough of them do. You blithely Islam's influence in this most Islamic nation. And this is end times Islam not the kind you claim familiarity with "
I have lived in three Islamic countries--Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia--for a total of nine years and travelled to many more. The most Islamic country I have personal knowledge of is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Paks are the most religious and the most zealous. They burned down our embassy in Islamabad just on the rumor of an American takeover of the Kaba in Saudi Arabia.
Lots more problems. Iran controlling Middle East oil output in consultation with Russia I guarantee you this will be extremely unpleasant, even for you
We will not allow Iran to control Middle East oil. Simple as that.
Incorrect. Many experts say one nuke will do it. If I ran Israel I don't take this chance and strike first One nuke destroying Tel Aviv and the Arabs can kill off whatever and whoever remains
I have visited Israel twice. There is no way one atomic bomb will destroy the country. And Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons of its own.
60
posted on
08/14/2008 4:56:10 PM PDT
by
kabar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson